Stephan Lawrence's murder

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Brian Mahoneys Waist, Apr 17, 2018.

  1. Bri

    Brian Mahoneys Waist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7,316
    Likes Received:
    5,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Still sickening all these years after.They should change the law where a no comment reply is deemed an admittance of guilt.
     
    Donny Red likes this.
  2. Durkar Red

    Durkar Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    11,214
    Likes Received:
    6,999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Exorcist
    Location:
    err..durkar
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
     
  3. Ripper

    Ripper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Ask for legal representation as soon as you are informed of your rights, so they can’t question until you have spoken to the person who is going to be representing you, then when questioned get your solicitor to inform them at the start of the interview you intent to reply no comment to every question due to your deep mistrust of the police, then answer no comment to every question no matter what it is. It’s the job of the police to prove you are guilty, not your job to prove your innocence. They should never be able to prove you guilty if you haven’t done it. If you have done it you would have to lie, as soon as you are caught lying, which you will be because they are highly trained in doing so, you’re finished. Always play it this way if you are guilty or not every time you are arrested. Then in the future your solicitor will explain in court that you do not trust the police and that this is what you have been advised to do every time you are arrested due to that mistrust.
     
  4. Mid

    MidlandsBFC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Great advice- and very true. The right to remain silent is your most powerful weapon. The police can be exceptionally manipulative at interview, so never give them the chance to incriminate you.

    I know some great police officers who I count as personal friends, but that doesn’t change the number of individuals who are wrongly/unjustly sentenced due to (at best) suspect questioning by police.

    The Lawrence case is undoubtedly a sickening one, but we can’t act in a reactionary manner when faced with such crimes, as we may live to regret the permanent loss of fundamental rights such a mindset can lead to.
     
  5. orsenkaht

    orsenkaht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    11,240
    Likes Received:
    10,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Should it come to a trial, I cannot think that as a general position, to say "I do not trust the police" is likely to impress either a jury or a bench of magistrates. It is more likely to be suggestive (even if only subconsciously on the part of the tribunal) that the accused has something to hide. The majority of police officers conducting interviews are ordinary people with no devious forensic interviewing skills and often no axe to grind. So a straightforward, truthful approach is more likely to impress those judging. After all, it is only necessary to establish a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or magistrate. As for supposed tactics on the part of interviewing officers, the suspect will always be given a copy of the tape recording of the interview at the conclusion, and it is the right of the defendant and his legal team to insist on this being played to the court. In the past, exercising this right has given rise to some hilarious moments in court when officers have been, shall we say slightly over-enthusiastic in what they have put to the interviewee. That is less likely to happen now.
     
  6. 36 Chambers

    36 Chambers Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley
    The left exploited this tragedy mercilessly, and still are doing.

    Used it to transform the police from a force who investigated crime into a service which enforces political correctness.
     
  7. MappRed

    MappRed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Just so I’m clear; you’re saying that even if a suspect is entirely innocent of the alleged offence and can provide a comprehensive statement in respect of the same, you’d still advise someone to ‘no comment’ throughout?
     
  8. JamDrop

    JamDrop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages:
    17,685
    Likes Received:
    17,699
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Leeds
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Every time I hear the words 'politcal correctness' I think of this:

     
    JLWBigLil likes this.
  9. man

    mansfield_red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    This is an interesting video on not talking to the police in the US

     
  10. 36 Chambers

    36 Chambers Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley
    Call it what you want, the police are now as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

    Unless you're being offensive on Twitter and then they're in like Elliot Ness.
     
  11. wak

    wakeyred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,953
    Likes Received:
    7,560
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    the clues in my imaginative online moniker
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Met police in civvies beating up strike breakers to frame miners. Nuff said. South York’s police at Hillsboro? The met chief denied and denied there was racism in the heart of his force because thatcher always backed her army didn’t she?
     
  12. Donny Red

    Donny Red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    7,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired.
    Location:
    Ossett.
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Totally agree BMW. Reading today about the crash Ant McPartlin was involved in. Police arrived at the scene
    to see his Mini smashed into another car. A roadside breath test showed that he was circa three times over
    the legal limit. When they got him to the Police Station in response to the charges the Police put to him, he
    replied " No comment." He hired a good brief and at his trial he was fined £ 86 k and banned from driving from
    for 20 months. A top Solicitor has commented today that in his view, Mc Partlin has got off very lightly.
    He says the reports show that he took a corner " like a madman" hit a Mini and a Beamer but was only charged with driving under the influence. In his view the DPP should have sanctioned the charges of speeding and dangerous driving as well. It must be very frustrating for the Police to lay charges only to simply get " No comment" in response, when quite clearly from witness statements, they know the accused person is guilty as charged. After his trial McPartlin said " I have let myself down." That's the understatement of the year.!
     
  13. orsenkaht

    orsenkaht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    11,240
    Likes Received:
    10,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I'm not sure which reports Nick Freeman claims to have read but the accounts I've seen of this incident didn't contain any comment on McPartlin's driving immediately before the collision. The accounts that have been published suggest that the collision occurred immediately after McPartlin had taken a sharp bend, and with his judgement no doubt clouded by the alcohol he had taken, it seems he failed to proceed with caution or to react sufficiently quickly to avoid the danger. But that doesn't of itself amount to dangerous driving. I've no doubt that the CPS will have reviewed the available evidence and considered their own charging standard for dangerous driving in deciding to charge only the drive with excess alcohol offence. To have also charged careless driving would have been pointless as that is a non-imprisonable offence, and would have added little to the more serious excess alcohol charge. There was no independent evidence of speeding. As for the "no comment" responses, they don't particularly hamper the police in this case. It was easy enough to establish that McPartlin was the driver, and once that is established the technical evidence of McPartlin's alcohol reading was easily gathered. It did not rely on any admissions from him.

    Freeman has of course made a successful and lucrative career out of defending (usually celebrity) motorists on road traffic charges. The comments he has made are suggestive of off the cuff remarks - he certainly doesn't appear to have considered the CPS charging standard. I suspect he would love to defend clients charged with dangerous driving in these circumstances all day long. He would certainly have been prepared to take McPartlin's case despite his comments regarding the charge. A nice way to drum up business! The problem I do have with this case is that if you look at sentencing guidelines (which would require you to have a serious amount of time on your hands) the reading looks as though it falls within the 'Band C' level of fine, which is 150% of weekly income. That would have given rise to 150% of McPartlin's weekly income, less one third discount for guilty plea, giving a fine of £130,000. In the event the District Judge has assessed the offence at 'Band B', which is 100% of weekly income (130,000) less one third, giving the fine of £86,000.

    There will be those who say "well, to collide like that he must have been driving dangerously". Fortunately, the law doesn't work like that and proper evidence is required in order to objectively assess the offences which can actually be proved.
     

Share This Page